what fine do cyclists face if they collide with my vehicle? i've had numerous cyclists just cut in front of my car without looking behind them. this is a poorly written law that removes any responsibility from the cyclists themselves and provides drivers no protection from irresponsible cyclists.

calinative: [portion deleted.] "what fine do cyclists face...?"

We all know that cyclists don't bear responsibility. Just sit by a stop sign and watch them violate the most basic traffic law in our state, time after time.

Or look at the absurd sentence the cyclist in the City got after causing a traffic death.

Laws don't apply to cyclists.

So, the "fine" that cyclists pay if they collide with your car is that they get hurt a lot more than you do.

In 2012, 4,743 pedestrians and 726 bicyclists were killed in crashes with motor vehicles. (source: Web Link But there's that one case that happened in the City that people keep bringing up, because cyclists are such a menace. Please.

You may not understand why the cyclist swerved suddenly. Things like nails, screws, box cutter blades, rocks, branches are a serious hazard to someone on a bicycle and invisible to someone driving a car. Give cyclists a little space and give yourself a few more minutes to get to your destination so that you're not in such a hurry.

Well put, Tunbridge Wells.

Editor: the "oh, you silly poster" comment was facetious.

"Things like nails, screws, box cutter blades, rocks, branches are a serious hazard to someone on a bicycle and invisible to someone driving a car." Sure, but so is swerving into traffic to avoid a screw. I suggest they go at a safe speed such that they can stop in time to avoid hazards. Or use bigger tires that can handle the detritus, but most of all: traveling at a safe speed such that a cyclist can identify hazards and have appropriate time to stop rather than suddenly swerve out into traffic and create havoc and risk so many lives.

Do not exonerate cyclists who suddenly swerve in to traffic just because they were going too fast to spot a branch ahead.

Since Tunbridge brings up the subject of pedestrian deaths, what is the law for cars to give safe buffer space for pedestrians? 3 feet? or a "safe distance"? Have cyclists succeeded in giving themselves more protection than pedestrians? more than the elderly, the disabled or even kids walking home from school? Odd for a group of miscreants that can't be bothered with stop signs.

"box cutter blades"? That's a nice oddity to bring up, instead of addressing all the cyclists that run stop signs, breaking the most basic law.

Please.

The article and the law are about how close motorists can pass people on bicycles, so I'm keeping it on this topic and not agreeing to a derail about whether cyclists run stop signs (which I don't do, because I ride with my kids and I model safe bicycling practices for them.)

The list of items are all things that I have personally encountered more than once in bike lanes or along the right side of the road. Box cutter blades are frequently used at work sites, along with the usual nails and screws and whatnot. Flat pieces of metal can be very hard to see at any sort of distance, I have normal vision, not Superman X-ray vision.

The roads are for people, not cars. Just give people on bicycles a little room, that's all this law is about.

"Flat pieces of metal can be very hard to see at any sort of distance, I have normal vision, not Superman X-ray vision."

First rule of defensive driving for automobiles is to give yourself enough room to stop, or go slow enough to be safe. Why should we expect cyclists to follow the most basic rule of defensive driving when they routinely ignore stop signs? If you can't see it, you are going too fast. Also: try thicker tires that can handle the junk on the road, or at least handle your fear of flat metal and razor blades. Besides, a flat tire is a small price to pay to avoid swerving in front of a car, and potentially causing the car to swerve and hit another, or heaven forbid, a pedestrian.

I can't give a three foot buffer to someone who suddenly swerves out into traffic because they failed to see "rocks, branches" or box cutters ahead of themselves. Dumb law. Enforce the laws we have.

Defensive driving. Defensive riding. Stop running stop signs.

Please.

Giving a three foot buffer is *exactly* defensive driving. If you are preaching defensive driving, then practicing what you preach means giving people on bicycles some space. If you aren't willing to give people on bicycles some space, then you aren't driving defensively.

"Giving a three foot buffer is *exactly* defensive driving." No. The former law, requiring that one keeps a "safe distance", is *exactly* defensive driving. Besides, your first response was about swerving cyclists.

How does one give a 3 foot buffer to a cyclist who suddenly swerves into traffic because of what you describe ("things like nails, screws, box cutter blades, rocks, branches").

It seems to me the onus of defensive driving is on the cyclist to travel at a safe speed such that they can safely navigate our junk filled streets and avoid swerving into traffic.

And start obeying all laws of the road, such as stopping at stop signs.

I find it amusing (in quite a sad way) that of all cyclists who post, few even bother to post a response about stop signs, and say something like "not me" and then stop commenting because they KNOW how often cyclists break the law.

No comment on this new law giving more protection to cyclists than pedestrians? Just an example of big governement bending to special interest groups, in this case, a group reknowned for breaking the simplest of traffic laws. Go sit at Bay and Ringwood for an hour. Or Avy and Cloud. Or any other number of 4 ways in town. Sheesh!

I'm staying on the topic. The topic is the new law that mandates a three foot buffer when cars pass people on bikes.

This law doesn't have anything to do with pedestrians. You're bringing in something unrelated.

If you are going to insist on talking about four way stops, feel free to start a new discussion about it over in TownSquare.

I'm stepping away from my computer for a bit, so if I don't respond right away it doesn't mean that you have proved anything. It just means I have other things to do.

My sense of this new law is that it's a formal recognition by the state of bicycles as vehicles using the roads. It serves to undercut the notion that drivers of cars and trucks and SUVs should see us as irritants asserting their rights in a space that, by right, belongs to drivers -- because they pay gas taxes or just because it's always been that way. Well, it's officially not that way anymore.

Maybe there should be another law penalizing cyclists who don't ride defensively. In the meantime, drivers are being schooled. Most don't need schooling, in my opinion, but one driver who's high on his rights to the road and who's not been told otherwise is enough to make trouble for cyclists.

To Laws don't apply: Enough with the reductio ad absurdum already. The new law makes sense.

"This law doesn't have anything to do with pedestrians. You're bringing in something unrelated."

You brought in pedestrian deaths, so I highlighted how this law appears to give more distance to cyclists than pedestrians. As for stop signs, I just noted that even cyclists don't bother to defend the ongoing lawbreaking by many, many cyclists. Your defense was the typical "not me" and then refusing to acknowledge the irony - the extent of the law-breaking problem in a thread about the new law.

"The topic is the new law that mandates a three foot buffer" and I made the point: a mandated 3 foot buffer doesn't make anyone safer than the previous law which required "safe distance". It just seems like big government intervention on behalf of a special interest group that isn't well known for respecting the existing laws as written.

Personally, I think "safe distance" is safer than a mandated distance, with drivers and cyclists focusing on a magical number, rather than SAFETY.

You disagree with that.

This is one of those times where what seems like it ought to be common sense has to be specifically spelled out. I agree that in a perfect world, "a safe distance" ought to be adequate, but we don't live in a perfect world. We live in a world where we have to spell things out, so we get "at least three feet" just like we get "don't text and drive" which seems like it ought to be blindingly obvious. What might seem like a safe distance to someone in a big metal cage might not feel like such a safe distance to someone without one. So now there is an objective measure, and I am ok with that.

(And yes I brought up pedestrian deaths, along with cyclist deaths, in reply to your reference to that one time that a cyclist killed a pedestrian, in contrast to the thousands of times cars kill people walking and biking.)

"This is one of those times where..."
"I agree that in a perfect world..."
"We live in a world where..."
"What might seem like a..."

All phrases one uses when they have no qualitative way of debating the issue. Even bike advocates know this is a joke: "It doesn't really change what drivers are already supposed to do"

What a joke. A potentially deadly joke.

3 feet might be safe one time, and might not be enough at other times. It's absurd to have drivers spend more time and concentration trying tp gauge whether they are at 2.75 feet and not 3 feet, when they should be always at a "safe distance" like the current law mandates. It's absurd that this new law gives false comfort to cyclists, so they might feel free to swerve more often than before and possibly cost them their lives, or the lives of others.


Another big government intervention on behalf of a special interest group that isn't well known for respecting the existing laws as written.

Giving the special interest group of miscreants more protection than pedestrians - sheesh!

Interesting threads -
Agree with all those who say that bikes who run stop signs are chuckleheads and should be ticketed.
Agree that the majority of bikers, therefore, must be chuckleheads.

3 ft, eh? Well, let me get out my yardstick while I'm zipping down the road and measure.....

At least, I now have my Halloween Bike Costume idea - either I'll be a tank with a 3 ft perimeter in the shape of a rectangle or a flying saucer. However, I have yet to figure out how I can get a 6 ft diameter hula hoop. Either way, I'm knocking every little old lady down and forget about those car doors 'cause I'm coming through! Bonus points for squirrels....

All jokes aside, everyone has to watch out and give a little. As a serious bike commuter, I am so angry at every biker who blows through stop signs. You want a driver's respect. You earn it! Obey the traffic rules.
To the lunch time pelaton that cruises through Wooside and PV, I get that it is fun but taking up the entire road is obnoxious. Allow people to pass and ride 2 abreast rather than 3 or 4.
There is an order to things for yielding - I always assumed it to be : pedestrians/horses - bikes/human powered vehicles - cars/trucks

What else am I missing?

Oh yeah, if riding at dusk/night, always have a light!

Be safe

Regarding pedestrians: the issue of "safe distance" between automobile and pedestrian is different than that for bicycle and automobile. In most situations, pedestrians walk on sidewalks, and the sidewalk, along with any parked cars that are present, provide(s) the buffer. An automobile driving along the edge of the sidewalk, or on the sidewalk, is obviously not respecting any "safe distance", no matter how it is defined. In addition, where sidewalks are not present, California Vehicle Code 21956 states that "(a) No pedestrian may walk upon any roadway outside of a business or residence district otherwise than close to his or her left-hand edge of the roadway." In other words, the pedestrian should be facing traffic and walking as far to his/her left as possible. On some roads, especially in rural areas, even this is problematic.

Note that the Vehicle Code also states that "21966. No pedestrian shall proceed along a bicycle path or lane where there is an adjacent adequate pedestrian facility." Thus, if there is a bike lane or path, with a sidewalk next to it, the pedestrian will be "buffered" by the width of the path - and as long as the automobile does not stray into the bike path, a safe distance will be maintained.

In addition, many (but not all) jurisdictions prohibit bicycle riding on sidewalks. Thus, even if that might be the safest place to ride, it may be illegal, and, even if legal, other conflicts (with pedestrians) are present. Therefore, although bicycles have the right to use roadways unless expressly prohibited (such as on freeways with posted signage), bicycles are sometimes "forced" to use the roadways if they want to be within the laws of the local jurisdiction.

Some bicyclists violate the law. Some pedestrians jaywalk. Some drivers speed. Most folks obey the laws, are considerate, and use common sense. The 3-foot passing law removes ambiguity, just as a speed limit sign removes ambiguity. Note that a speed limit sign does not mean "you can drive that fast under any circumstances". The 3-foot law does not mean bicyclists should ride out in the middle of the road just because they can, even if cars still have 3 feet to pass.

Laws Don't Apply-"Or look at the absurd sentence the cyclist in the City got after causing a traffic death."

At least he got a sentence.

Drivers routinely run down cyclist and pedestrians in crosswalks, in bike lanes, and on sidewalks and if they stay and cooperate with police, they are rarely charged with anything. Not even given a ticket.

Ask the parents of Amelie Le Moullac, killed while riding a bike legally in a bike lane. Nothing.

Ask the family of Joy Covey, killed while riding a bike legally on Skyline. Nothing.

Ask the family of Shahriar Rahimzadeh, killed in a crosswalk in Atherton. Nothing.

Ask the family of the boys mowed down while walking on the sidewalk in Menlo Park. Nothing.

And that's just local folks in the last year. Probably more I don't remember.

"Interested observer"

Thanks for providing the info and cites, showing that pedestrians, no matter if they are old, young, disabled or not, are now given less official protection than cyclists, who demanded three feet rather than a "safe distance".

That's a powerful special interest group, that can write their own laws, while blowing through stop signs on a regular basis.

See: Cloud & Avy. Ringwood and Coleman. And too many other intersections to mention.

Government fails again. Let's make it 3.75 feet and really screw things up.

The cyclist ices can also help by staying in the middle of the bike lane and not ride with their tires on the while line. If the ride with tire on the white line, the car lane is not wide enough to allow the car driver to pass and conform to the law

I'm both a driver and a cyclist and obey the laws when I'm doing either. But a cyclist is no match for an automobile and the driver who is distracted.

Web Link

Mike - all the more reason for cyclists to obey laws.

Memories-
and the other way around.
Not much a cyclist can do for a distracted driver.

So, why don't we all just get along and look after each other.

Cyclists will have my respect and sympathy when they stop at every stop sign and obey other laws. Most adult cyclists are also drivers. There's a clue about bad driving, right there.

What gets me is how little safety gear most cyclists employ. Rarely do I see elbow pads, knee pads, mouth guards etc. No long pants, jock straps or even leather like motorcyclists use. Even the styrofoam cooler that substitutes for a real helmet is severely lacking in its ability to protect them. Laws don't protect you, common sense does. Lets encourage cyclists to worry more about their own safety, getting home safe is far superior than getting home quickly.

"Cyclists will have my respect and sympathy when they stop at every stop sign and obey other laws. "

So no person on a bicycle gets any respect from you? Is that what you are saying? You are holding an entire group of people accountable for the actions of individuals? That doesn't make any sense. If you are going to demand 100% compliance with all laws from bicyclists, are you doing the same for cars? If one reverses positions and says "cars will have my respect and sympathy when they stop at every stop sign and obey other laws" it would sound ridiculous, because it is.

Local Resident- jock straps? You do understand that 50% of people on bicycles have no use for such a thing, right?

@Tunbridge "If you are going to demand 100% compliance with all laws from bicyclists, are you doing the same for cars?"

We do. Every day. That's evident from the numerous articles, such as:

* Officers issues 252 traffic tickets on Wednesday in Atherton and Menlo Park
* Motorcycle cops issue 82 tickets for 'distracted driving' in Atherton, Menlo Park

See any recent articles about the dozens of tickets issued to my fellow cyclists wandering all over the road, flying through stop signs, etc..? When are you going to call for a crackdown on cyclists and enforcement of all laws?

Cyclist & Driver - thank you, that was my point. Driving is also a privilege, and as such, drivers have to pass tests, carry insurance, and can lose their license. Cyclists don't. I'm one of the only cyclists I know who does stop for all stop signs, walks my bike in a crosswalk, and when riding in the street looks dangerous, walks my bike on the sidewalk.

I'm actually at a point where I think it may be time to license cyclists and enforce the laws more widely that they're supposed to be following.

@memoies: "it may be time to license cyclists and enforce the laws more widely that they're supposed to be following"

Way too late. As @LawsDontApply stated previously, most of our fellow cyclists are content to be part of a special interest group that gets an unsafe new law passed to "protect" them; we can little expect that enforcement on the rogue majority will occur any time soon.

@LawsDontApply: "3 feet might be safe one time, and might not be enough at other times. It's absurd to have drivers spend more time and concentration trying tp gauge whether they are at 2.75 feet and not 3 feet, when they should be always at a "safe distance" like the current law mandates. It's absurd that this new law gives false comfort to cyclists, so they might feel free to swerve more often than before and possibly cost them their lives, or the lives of others. Another big government intervention on behalf of a special interest group that isn't well known for respecting the existing laws as written."

And on a separate but related topic: those cars who do move over to accommodate the 3 feet law must also pay attention to either oncoming traffic or the lane next to them. Too many times I see cars move over for cyclists with complete disregard to other vehicle traffic around them. They either move into the oncoming lane and force the oncoming car to swerve or they move over into the adjacent lane going the same direction, forcing the car next to them to either swerve or brake suddenly. Please stay in your lane and adjust to the conditions accordingly -- don't just react as if you are the only other driver on the road. See examples on Santa Cruz/Alameda traveling north after crossing Sand Hill and almost anywhere on Alpine.

I think that we need to put into perspective the reality of the commonly held belief that all bicyclists run stop signs, and few motorists do. So I observed motorist and bicyclist behavior at a three-way stop in my neighborhood. I watched long enough to count 100 cars. Of these, 59 either stopped completely or slowed to a walking speed, and 41 ran the stop sign. In that time I observed one bicyclist who slowed to a walking speed and 9 who ran the stop sign at 10 mph or less. So I ask: Which is the greater safety hazard? Forty-one cars that run the stop sign, or nine bikes? To complete the picture, I would have to describe two of the stop signs at this intersection as nuisance stop signs, intended only to slow motor vehicle traffic, and unneeded for safety or control of right of way. Menlo Park has many such signs. There are probably several in your neighborhood.

All the more reason for cyclists to stop at stop signs, Robert.

I live on and commute on the same highways and roads that many bicyclists use for recreation. There are no bike lanes and often no shoulder and lots of hazards. I give the 3 foot clearance and maintain a safe distance from bikes. I don't want to be a party to an accident, even if it is the bicyclists fault.

That having been said, bicycles are also required to follow the law regarding turning out when they are a slow moving vehicle. This is not only simple courtesy (and your part of "Share the Road") but it is the law. If you are impeding the flow of traffic by traveling well below the speed limit (such as, riding uphill on one of our steep mountain roads) you must follow this law:

Turning Out of Slow-Moving Vehicles

21656. On a two-lane highway where passing is unsafe because of traffic in the opposite direction or other conditions, a slow-moving vehicle, including a passenger vehicle, behind which five or more vehicles are formed in line, shall turn off the roadway at the nearest place designated as a turnout by signs erected by the authority having jurisdiction over the highway, or wherever sufficient area for a safe turnout exists, in order to permit the vehicles following it to proceed. As used in this section a slow-moving vehicle is one which is proceeding at a rate of speed less than the normal flow of traffic at the particular time and place.

Where bicycling is really out of control ...

Web Link

I read the new law with interest, and some concern.

I'm with the law - in that, I don't think a bicyclist and a car should come within 3 feet of each other while moving. In particular, when our kids are biking - I especially don't want cars to get too close.

But here is the other side. There are biking rules of the road -- safety rules -- in place, and many of our children and some of our adults don't seem to be aware of them.

Every afternoon when I drive to Hillview to pick up my child, there are children riding two and three abreast on our streets - probably so they can chat with each other. I've also seen adults two abreast with their children. I am very nervous driving around town - particularly in areas where the town has seeded even more of the road to riders making it very difficult for cars to stay out of their way. Children will get distracted. They will swerve and there is now no margin for error.

At the very least, and for their own well-being, we should make sure our children know the rules of the road. (If that means putting them through a 'safe biking' course in middle and high schools as has been done in elementary, so be it.)And I sincerely hope adults will be the model by following those rules of the road themselves.

I forgot to add - in addition to educating the kids, oversight and enforcement for cyclists, would help to keep everyone playing fair.